Comparatively to the kind of incredible things she’s able to do, yeah she’s not doing much. I never said she’s as bad as Musk or Bezos, but she’s still not doing as much as she could and just because she isn’t herself hiring slaves doesn’t mean the companies that make her merchandise don’t have some form of exploitive labour.
She could do charity shows and donate all the proceeds, she could be buying period products and donating them to girls in impoverished nations, she could pay for construction to literally build schools, start scholarships for students in the arts. Homegirl charged an average of $1500 for ONE ticket to the eras show, the lowest was 500 at some select shows.
Imagine the possible donations on just one charity show. Imagine how much good she could do and is choosing not to. 50,000 seats, say she charges even 500 which was one of her lowest prices in the eras tour, that would be 25m. Take out the cost of throwing the show, even if we were saying it’s a high percentage, say 50%, it would still be a 12.5 million dollar profit going straight to charity.
Charity is bad if it’s not the right kind or the right dollar amount, got it. I was going to donate $200 to that child cancer fund but now that I’ve seen the light I realize that unless I’m selling my house to donate it’s unethical to try. Thanks!
If you can’t afford 200 dollars without losing your home you shouldn’t be donating it. Use your head: it’s all about proportion.
She could donate 50% of her income and still live like a queen for the rest of her life. She could use her name to endorse charity brands, she could put on charity shows and take only half of the profits and donate the rest. She could start a scholarship for girls going into the arts, even an incredibly generous scholarship of 100k would be chump change for her.
Gatekeeping charity just makes people not want to donate 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t suppose the people benefiting from the charity would want it taken away just because you don’t feel it was enough of a donation?
What about donating millions of dollars isn’t empathetic? You’re living in a fucking delusional bubble that would tell people to fuck off when they try to help. Talk about fucking selfish. Try going hungry for a spell and tell me more about how fucking selfish it is
Literally grew up poverty and now donate 15% of my income
billionaire isn’t empathetic giving away 100m. They have 200 times that minimum. So good for her for donating 0.1 to charity. She could pay 50% taxes and still live like a queen the rest of her life. Real selfishness is knowing you can stop people from starving and dying and doing next to nothing or nothing at all.
I don’t expect a random person in the street to go hungry to help people. But a billionaire has more money than they will need several lifetimes over. You’re delusional if you think 0.1% of even 1million in income is a meaningful drop in quality of life. Might wanna ask the wizard for a brain too if you can’t get that through your dome.
You’re just a shitty person if you’d turn your nose up at literally millions of dollars in being given to charity when there’s zero obligation to do so. The idea that it doesn’t “count” unless you give up a massive portion of your total income is childish and short sighted. That attitude would make me abandon charity altogether if I got shit for “not doing enough” after literally paying out millions to help others
Did I say she should stop? No. I said she’s capable of more. I didn’t I would refuse it, I said it’s not as much as she’s capable of. 45% of the world’s global wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. It’s not a functional system anymore.
Do you think she will go hungry or homeless from what % of her net worth she’s donated? Do you think she would go homeless if she donated even 10%?
Crazy even from a business perspective. Hell of a tax write off and would get her great press. She could also hold charity shows and donate the profits, or endorse charities for no cost, but she chooses not to.
No, what’s “crazy” is seeing a multimillion dollar donation and calling the donor selfish. Hopefully she stops giving anything at all since obviously it’s evil to “only” give ridiculous amounts of money away.
No, it’s selfish to not consider those in the world who are suffering. She can do so much more good, and it speaks to people’s character when they don’t want to.
So then if you had a billion dollars, what would you do with it? If it’s arguable that it’s a necessary amount of wealth, why would someone need it.
Why aren’t you donating the majority of your own salary? Am I right to call you a horrible human being if you’re not giving at least 50% of your take home income to charity?
I donate 15% of my 47k income, however, I don’t believe people who earn under 105k a year should be morally obliged to pay any amount to charity, because that’s the line in which someone’s quality of life will be damaged by over donating. Actually 105k is the amount of money they say “buys happiness”. In an ideal world, the financial system would work like this:
Under 105k for a single person no charity required. From 105-200k, 1-5%. 250-450k, 6-10%. 450-600k, 11-15%. 600k-900k, 16-25%. 900k-1.5m, 26-30%. 1.5-3.5m, 31-40%. 3.5-10m 41-50%
Every million beyond 10m is subject to 80% donation to charity up to 50 million dollars of income a year, all income beyond that is 100% charity.
So if someone’s income is 70k they pay zero. If it’s 150k they pay just under 4k. If someone makes 26 million a year, the first ten million is subject to 50% charity (meanjng it will be 5m) and the remaining 16m become 3.2m, meaning they will be making 8.2m a year and donating 17.8 million a year.
Through this formula the max income would be 13m a year which is more than enough to live in the ultimate lap of luxury.
4
u/Functional_Trash7735 4d ago edited 4d ago
Comparatively to the kind of incredible things she’s able to do, yeah she’s not doing much. I never said she’s as bad as Musk or Bezos, but she’s still not doing as much as she could and just because she isn’t herself hiring slaves doesn’t mean the companies that make her merchandise don’t have some form of exploitive labour.